font package naming

[Jens-Ulrik Petersen]

Hi,

I would like to propose adding the following text to our
"Package Naming Guidelines".
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines

'''
== Fonts Packages ==

Font packages should be named with the upstream name appended with `-fonts`.

Examples:
{{{
bitmap-fonts
dejavu-lgc-fonts
ghostscript-fonts
urw-fonts
xorg-x11-fonts
}}}

'''

Should the text discuss what to do when the upstream name contains the 
word "font" already?

See 
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-February/msg00794.ht... 
and 
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/2007-March/msg00262.html 
for some recent discussion of <upstreamname>-fonts vs fonts-<language> 
and "-fonts" vs "-font" for singlet font packages.

Comments or objections?

Jens

ps We might even consider renaming some of our "fonts-*" packages to 
follow this naming scheme for F8.

Packaging/ScriptletSnippets Fonts section needs to mention Buildrequires

[Jens-Ulrik Petersen]

Hi,

The Fonts scriptlet on Packaging/ScriptletSnippets should list the 
following requires too:

Requires(post): fontconfig
Requires(postun): fontconfig

Jens

Packaging/ScriptletSnippets Fonts section needs to mention Buildrequires

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le mardi 10 avril 2007 à 12:24 +1000, Jens Petersen a écrit :
> The Fonts scriptlet on Packaging/ScriptletSnippets should list the 
> following requires too:
>
> Requires(post): fontconfig
> Requires(postun): fontconfig

Nope. Their whole point is not to add a fontconfig dep to font packages

Packaging/ScriptletSnippets Fonts section needs to mention Buildrequires

[Jens-Ulrik Petersen]

Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Nope. Their whole point is not to add a fontconfig dep to font packages

Should bugs be filed against all fonts packages that currently require 
fontconfig?

Jens

Packaging/ScriptletSnippets Fonts section needs to mention Buildrequires

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Mer 11 avril 2007 03:54, Jens Petersen a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Nope. Their whole point is not to add a fontconfig dep to font packages
>
> Should bugs be filed against all fonts packages that currently require
> fontconfig?

IMHO yes. When this was formalized (around Bitstream Vera inclusion in
fedora.us then FC) non adherence of font packages to any specific renderer
was an explicit objective. (I'm speaking of truetype/opentype packages
there, core fonts are a lost cause).

The most one can do is conflict with old fontconfig packages if the rpm
dumps a conf file in /etc/fonts, since fontconfig syntax has evolved over
time.

Packaging/ScriptletSnippets Fonts section needs to mention Buildrequires

[Parag Nemade]

Hi Nicolas,
On 4/11/07, Nicolas Mailhot  wrote:
> Le Mer 11 avril 2007 03:54, Jens Petersen a écrit :
> > Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > > Nope. Their whole point is not to add a fontconfig dep to font packages
> >
> > Should bugs be filed against all fonts packages that currently require
> > fontconfig?
>
> IMHO yes. When this was formalized (around Bitstream Vera inclusion in
> fedora.us then FC) non adherence of font packages to any specific renderer
> was an explicit objective. (I'm speaking of truetype/opentype packages
> there, core fonts are a lost cause).
>
> The most one can do is conflict with old fontconfig packages if the rpm
> dumps a conf file in /etc/fonts, since fontconfig syntax has evolved over
> time.

Can you please provide more information on this issue of not having
"Requires: fontconfig" in fonts packages?
  Currently I am in confusion on whether to drop fontconfig as
Requires or not and still packaging guidelines is missing this issue
to address it.
  I am sure many new packages got added to Fedora recently and many
will be coming in future. But still we are missing proper fonts
guidelines page. I think its good if we have wiki page that will
describe and give sample SPEC for fonts packages including how to
handle license and its naming issues for new coming fonts package
reviews.
Regards,
Parag.

Packaging/ScriptletSnippets Fonts section needs to mention Buildrequires

[Jens-Ulrik Petersen]

Parag N(पराग़) さんは書きました:
> Can you please provide more information on this issue of not having
> "Requires: fontconfig" in fonts packages?

The argument I can see for having "Requires(post): fontconfig", etc is 
that potentially some fonts packages could get installed before 
fontconfig does and so not get included in the cache?

Jens

Packaging/ScriptletSnippets Fonts section needs to mention Buildrequires

[Matthias Clasen]

On Wed, 2007-09-19 at 15:37 +1000, Jens Petersen wrote:
> Parag N(पराग़) さんは書きました:
> > Can you please provide more information on this issue of not having
> > "Requires: fontconfig" in fonts packages?
>
> The argument I can see for having "Requires(post): fontconfig", etc is 
> that potentially some fonts packages could get installed before 
> fontconfig does and so not get included in the cache?
>
> Jens

If fontconfig gets installed later, it should create all the required
caches in %post:

# Force regeneration of all fontconfig cache files

Packaging/ScriptletSnippets Fonts section needs to mention Buildrequires

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Mer 19 septembre 2007 07:37, Jens Petersen a écrit :
> Parag N(पराग़) さんは書きました:
> > Can you please provide more information on this issue of not having
> > "Requires: fontconfig" in fonts packages?
>
> The argument I can see for having "Requires(post): fontconfig", etc is
> that potentially some fonts packages could get installed before
> fontconfig does and so not get included in the cache?

Fontconfig creates its cache on install. There is no need for
Requires(post): fontconfig

Since there were some interested replies to my font SIG proposal but
no deluge of would-be SIG contributors I'll probably document in my
wiki space with no particular urgency

fonts packages requiring fontconfig

[Jens-Ulrik Petersen]

Nicolas Mailhot さんは書きました:
> Fontconfig creates its cache on install. There is no need for
> Requires(post): fontconfig

Ok, that is good then.

One other small thing: except a few fonts, it seems only fontconfig 
currently owns /usr/share/fonts.  Should it be owned by filesystem instead?
> Since there were some interested replies to my font SIG proposal but
> no deluge of would-be SIG contributors I'll probably document in my
> wiki space with no particular urgency

Ok, I see.  If you like I would be happy to put the documentation of 
fonts for different languages, etc under I18N/Fonts in the wiki. :)

Jens

fonts packages requiring fontconfig

[Nicolas Mailhot]

Le Ven 21 septembre 2007 11:54, Jens Petersen a écrit :
> Nicolas Mailhot さんは書きました:
> > Fontconfig creates its cache on install. There is no need for
> > Requires(post): fontconfig
>
> Ok, that is good then.
>
> One other small thing: except a few fonts, it seems only fontconfig
> currently owns /usr/share/fonts.  Should it be owned by filesystem
> instead?

I didn't check but if its not owned by filesystem it should be
> > Since there were some interested replies to my font SIG proposal but
> > no deluge of would-be SIG contributors I'll probably document in my
> > wiki space with no particular urgency
>
> Ok, I see.  If you like I would be happy to put the documentation of
> fonts for different languages, etc under I18N/Fonts in the wiki. :)

Well it seems this message has the intended effect of getting a few
more people react, to I guess we may still get a font SIG :) At least
I'll look this week-end what is required to formally create one, and
start working on the wiki pages

Regards,